Wikipedia

HELP US VOICE FOR THE CAUSE OF THE HIMALAYAN REGION AND BEYOND !

Follow by Email

January 19, 2014

[As the chaos
escalates, Israeli officials insist they have no inclination to intervene.
Instead, they have embraced a castle mentality, hoping the moat they have dug —
in the form of high-tech border fences, intensified military deployments and
sophisticated intelligence — is broad enough at least to buy time.]

By Jodi Rudoren

Ancho Gosh/Jinpix, via Reuters

An Israeli security coordinator near Kiryat Shmona stood by the remains of a rocket fired from Lebanon last month.

JERUSALEM — After a Katyusha rocket fired from Lebanon landed in
Israel last month, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu blamed
Hezbollah, the Shiite militia, and its Iranian backers. But Israeli security
officials attributed the attack, as well as a similar one
in August, to a Sunni jihadist group linked to Al Qaeda.

That disconnect is
representative of the deepening dilemma Israel faces as the region around it is
riven by sectarian warfare that could redraw the map of the Middle East.

Mr. Netanyahu and
other leaders continue to see Shiite Iran and its nuclear program as the
primary threat to Israel, and Hezbollah as the most likely to draw it into
direct battle. Still, the mounting strength of extremist Sunni cells in Syria,
Iraq and beyond that are pledging to bring jihad to Jerusalem can hardly be
ignored.

As the chaos
escalates, Israeli officials insist they have no inclination to intervene.
Instead, they have embraced a castle mentality, hoping the moat they have dug —
in the form of high-tech border fences, intensified military deployments and
sophisticated intelligence — is broad enough at least to buy time.

“What we have to
understand is everything is going to be changed — to what, I don’t know,” said
Yaakov Amidror, who recently stepped down as Israel’s national security
adviser. “But we will have to be very, very cautious not to take part in this struggle.
What we see now is a collapsing of a historical system, the idea of the
national Arabic state. It means that we will be encircled by an area which will
be no man’s land at the end of the day.”

Mr. Amidror, a former
major general in military intelligence, summed up the strategy as “Wait, and
keep the castle.”

Israeli leaders have
tried to exploit recent events to bolster their case for a long-term military
presence in the Jordan Valley, a sticking point in the United States-brokered
peace talks with the Palestinians. In a speech this month, Naftali Bennett,
head of the right-wing Jewish Home party, ticked off violent episodes in
Afghanistan, Egypt, Iraq and Lebanon, and concluded sarcastically, “A really
excellent time to divest ourselves of security assets.”

Mr. Bennett, who
opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state, might seize on any excuse to
undermine the talks. But Israeli officials, and analysts with close ties to the
government and security establishment, said the argument also had traction in
more mainstream quarters. The deterioration in Iraq, which borders Jordan,
has revived concerns about vulnerability on Israel’s eastern flank.

“From the Straits of
Gibraltar to the Khyber Pass, it’s very hard to come by a safe and secure
area,” Mr. Netanyahu told reporters here on Thursday. “Peace can be built on
hope, but that hope has to be grounded in facts,” he said. “A peace that is not
based on truth will crash against the realities of the Middle East.”

Michael Herzog, a
retired Israeli general and former peace negotiator, said that “what you hear
in Israeli government circles” is that the regional chaos “highlights the need
for solid security arrangements.”

“The U.S. accepts the
basic Israeli argument that given what’s happening in the region — suddenly
jihadists are taking over Syria, and there’s no telling what will happen
elsewhere — there is a legitimate cause for concern,” said Mr. Herzog, who has
been consulting with the American team. “How to translate that into concrete
security arrangements is something the parties are right now coping with.”

Israeli security and
political officials have been unsettled by the rapid developments on the ground
and in the diplomatic arena in recent weeks. Washington’s gestures toward Iran,
not only on
the nuclear issue but also with regard to Syria and Iraq,
underscore a divergence in how the United States and Israel, close allies, view
the region. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, which shares Israel’s concern about
an emboldened Iran, is financing Sunni groups that view Israel as the ultimate
enemy.

More broadly, the
intensified fighting has convinced many Israelis that the region will be
unstable or even anarchic for some time, upending decades of strategic
positioning and military planning.

“Historically, Israel
has preferred to have strong leaders, even if they’re hostile to Israel,” said
Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center in
Herzliya, citing President Bashar al-Assad of Syria as an example.

“It’s a problem
without an address,” Mr. Spyer said of the Islamist groups often lumped
together as “global jihad.” “Israel always likes to have an address. Assad we
don’t like, but when something happens in Assad’s territory, we can bargain
with him. These guys, there is no address. There is no one to bargain with.”

Maj. Gen. Yoav
Har-Even, director of the Israeli military’s planning branch, said in an
interview published this month in the newspaper Yediot Aharonot that global
jihad had already “taken control of some of the arms warehouses” in Syria and
established a presence in the Golan Heights. He called it a “central target” of
intelligence efforts.

“I don’t have, today,
a contingency plan to destroy global jihad,” General Har-Even acknowledged.
“But I am developing the intelligence ability to monitor events. If I spot
targets that are liable to develop into a problem, I take the excellent
intelligence that I am brought, I process it for the target and plan action.
And I have a great many such targets.”

Since the Arab Spring
uprisings began in 2011, there have been two main schools of thought in Israel.
One argues that the instability in the region makes resolving the Palestinian conflict
all the more urgent, to provide a beacon on an uncertain sea. The other
cautions against making any concessions close to home while the future of the
neighborhood remains unclear. The camps have only hardened their positions in
response to the recent developments.

“The most important
lesson from the last few weeks is that you cannot rely on a snapshot of reality
at any given time in order to plan your strategic needs,” said Dore Gold,
president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and Israel’s former
ambassador to the United Nations, who recently rejoined Mr. Netanyahu’s team as
a freelance foreign policy adviser. “The region is full of bad choices. What
that requires you to do is take your security very seriously. And you shouldn’t
be intimidated by people saying, ‘Well, that’s a worst-case analysis,’ because
lately, the worst is coming through.”

Efraim Halevy, a
former director of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, views the landscape
differently. Iran’s involvement in Syria and Iraq could distract it from its
nuclear project, he said. Hezbollah has lost fighters in Syria and faced
setbacks in its standing at home in Lebanon. Hamas, the Palestinian militant
faction that controls the Gaza Strip, has been severely weakened by the new
military-backed government in Egypt and its crackdown on the Muslim
Brotherhood. Syria’s military capacity has been greatly diminished.

“If you look all
around, compared to what it was like six months ago, Israel can take a deep
breath,” Mr. Halevy said. “The way things are at the moment, if you want to
photograph it, it looks as if some of the potential is there for an improvement
in Israel’s strategic position and interests. It’s more than ever a see and
wait, and be on your guard, and protect yourself if necessary.”